The Temporary Importance of Space in the Election
Matt Reed: Newt’s awesome space plan shields a bad candidate, Florida Today
“How Gingrich led the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1998 for lying about an affair — even as Gingrich had cheated on his wife for six years. I despised Gingrich by the time he took the stage in Cocoa on Wednesday. Then, Newt seduced me with one of the best speeches on space I’ve ever heard.”
A colony on the moon? Gingrich finds risks and rewards in backyard politics, AP
“No issue better illustrates the risks and rewards of backyard politics than Florida’s space industry. Gingrich ignited the discussion by making a bold declaration at a packed rally last week in Cocoa, about 20 miles from the Kennedy Space Center. “By the end of my second term we will have the first permanent base on the moon, and it will be American,” he said before being interrupted by applause.”
Leaders In America’s Space Program Write Open Letter In Support Of Mitt Romney, Houston Chronicle
“As president, Mitt Romney will facilitate close collaboration not only within the government’s civil and national security space sectors, but also with the private sector and with research institutions. He will create conditions for a strong and competitive commercial space industry that can contribute greatly to our national capabilities and goals. And he will ensure that NASA returns its focus to the project of manned space exploration that uniquely affirms American strength and values around the globe. Under his leadership, America will once again lead the world in space.”
Keith’s note: 24 Hours after the Florida primary votes are in, you will likely hear little – if anything – about space from these candidates ever again.
Election time is the only time that you hear presidential candidates from any political party talk about space. That’s the problem with this country these days, elected officials only care about politics and not actually getting things done. They forget that politicking is what you do to get elected into office and then you’re supposed to govern. But they just keep politicking for the next election. And that’s because of all the money. If we don’t get the money out of elections, this country will never recover. The SCOTUS decision in Citizens United vs. FEC was the death knell for this country.
The reporting on space after Newt’s Moon speech this past week has been absolutely appalling. Media ignorance and stupidity on display everywhere. One of the few cogent and logical pieces to emerge is by Byron York, here: In NASA-land, Romney, Gingrich battle over space
http://campaign2012.washing…
Moon base in 8 years. Moon colony applying for statehood. It made Gingrich sound foolish and naive, even to space advocates. And he should have known how dumb it all sounded to non-fanbois. It was politically stupid. And because of that, that makes him look unqualified to be President.
Had he limited himself to prizes, supporting commercial space, and creating a lean fighting NASA, he would have seemed competent and informed. Political insiders would have talked about how it’s been a theme of Gingrich’s over the years, making him look consistent. Unlike Romney. And interested, unlike both Romney and Obama.
Had he then spoken in general terms about the vast potential of space, the future of humanity, yadda yadda, it would have combined with his past interest in space to make him look visionary. And tech-literate, the same “geek chic” vibe Obama had initially.
Instead he went all Star Trek nerd, weird and embarrassing, by going on about moon colonies applying for US statehood. He just looked silly.
I think Gingrich had the right vision regarding his space speech, although clearly it was intended to appeal to Floridians for votes. At some point humans will build a colony on the Moon — some country, some organization will do it, maybe in the 21st century. But as a near term goal, with inhabitants applying for statehood — that was probably too visionary (and therefore dubbed a joke) for the majority of the science illiterate media. The same thing happened to Goddard when he was testing his liquid rockets. When it comes to grand, never-done-before scientific proposals, there will always be those saying the idea is cooky. Consider the trouble the Wright brothers had in funding the testing of their airplanes. Had some presidential candidate back then proposed government spending (through a government agency or through prizes) for the invention of an “airplane”, you would likely have heard of similar media criticism: what good is an airplane, who needs flight, etc.
What Gingrich, in my opinion, should have proposed is something more achievable–simply a human-tended scientific research base on the Moon. He could have made parallels with antarctic research stations, pointing out the type of research done there into climate history, and suggested the type of research and questions a lunar base would address.
What makes me curious is this: why are some Moon first advocates (I personally think the Moon is the most logical place to test technologies for living off the planet in preparation for Mars) like Griffin and Cernan supporting Mitt Romney so soon, especially when he criticized Gingrich’s Moon colony proposal? This seems counter to what they want–unless there’s something we don’t know. Perhaps they would explain to Romney that a scientific research base on the Moon is not the same as a lunar colony that would apply for statehood. I guess time will tell.